Moldova and the Economic Crisis Posted by James Lamond

The food crisis last year led to food riots and the fall of the government in Haiti.  The global financial crisis led to the collapse of the government in Iceland.  While these situations were certainly devastating for the citizens of the countries, the effects remained relatively isolated.  However the recent political crisis in Moldova has brought some concerns about the security and geopolitical implications of the economic crisis into reality.

Sec. Gates v. Sens. Inhofe, Chambliss, et al Posted by David Shorr

Others here on DA and elsewhere have given us all the good defense-wonk stuff, so I'll leave that to them. I want to make sure we don't lose the big political picture for the looming battle over the budget. For so many of the issues on the national security agenda, the true heart of the matter is whether our political culture can rise to a new level of maturity. The tired demagogic weak-on-defense charge is one important test, and worth debunking. As Max and others clarify the issue of what constitutes a "cut," let's talk about whether the politics that surrounds these issues even acknowledges the need for choices in defense policy -- a question on which Secretary Gates was quite eloquent.

When Sen. Inhofe accuses the administration of undercutting those in harm's way, and Sen. Chambliss claims our leaders are willing to sacrifice the lives of servicemembers, they are declaring the defense budget a debate-free zone. Here's how I understand the underlying argument. All programs are essential for the defense of the nation and the safety of our people and our troops. Any money that can be spent, should be spent. Any money that's asked for, should be appropriated. Whatever it is that a weapon system can do, we need that. Is this really how the world's most powerful nation deliberates over its national security? Really?

On this issue, the relevant passage of the Gates speech highlights the need to:

ruthlessly separate appetites from real requirements – those things that are desirable in a perfect world from those things that are truly needed in light of the threats America faces  

All of which to say that if the focus of the upcoming budget debate is about all those great substantive and consequential questions about counterinsurgency and the wars of the present and future, it will be a welcome shift from all this frivolous demagoguery.

Does Terrorism Matter in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Posted by Patrick Barry

Disagreeing with Steve Walt is generally not advisable, because A) he's generally right in the first place, and B) he can turn your best arguments into confetti, but I am going to go ahead and take issue with his  post questioning the seriousness of the terrorist threat in the Afghanistan - Pakistan region. While I don't disagree with his overall caution - that we should be careful not to inflate the significance of terrorist threats in general - I felt that his exploration of terrorism in the particular setting of Afghanistan and Pakistan fell short in a few ways.

Debating Democracy in the Obama Era Posted by Shadi Hamid

I wrote last month about an open letter, which I've helped organize, on the need to make democracy in the Middle East a top priority, which was signed by leading American and Muslim scholars and experts. The Washington Post, in an editorial, cited it, saying "[the letter's] depth and breadth vividly shows that the Obama administration could find many allies for progressive change in the Middle East - if only it looks beyond the rulers' palaces."

Tarek Osman, at OpenDemocracy, offered several critiques of the letter here. I've written a response, addressing the open letter's aims and addressing the concerns of Osman and others:

But Osman is sceptical that there can ever be a rapprochement between America and Islamists, even those like the Muslim Brotherhood that are nonviolent. The United States, he rightly points out, is not so concerned with whether the Brotherhood is sufficiently democratic or whether it accepts the rights of women and minorities. The source of enmity, rather, is a clash of interests. "Pax Americana", Osman argues, "aims to ‘stabilise the region'", and this, of course, includes guaranteeing Israel's security. Meanwhile, "Islam's opposition is not time-bound but theological: it sees ‘settling' as a sin, and long-term jihad...is divinely ordained."

Osman is right that Israel is a major sticking-point, but he paints both America and Islamists in simplistic terms: as unitary, intransigent actors. Between and within Islamist movements, an important debate is taking place regarding the Jewish state. It may be true that individual Islamists harbour a religiously motivated hatred of Israel, but it is also true that beliefs are not always an accurate predictor of behaviour.

You can read the whole thing here.

Defending Koh Posted by Michael Cohen

It seems that some conservatives have gotten themselves in quite a tizzy about the nomination of Harold Koh to be the top lawyer at the State Department. The criticism, as best I understand it, is that Koh wants to replace American jurisprudence with not only international law, but "the favored policies of Europe’s leftist elites."

Trust me, I only wish I was making this up. It seems the very fact that Koh sees value in having American judges occasionally consider international is his most glaring sin, but really I think this is the sort of dangerous nativist rhetoric that is gathering steam among some conservatives - a point I made a few days ago in Politico.

I won't personally wade too deep into this because it is being well-covered by others. But, I recommend checking out Publius over at Obsidian Wings, who has been all over this and at Undiplomatic, Charles Brown is firing up the pro-Koh bandwagon.

NSN Daily Update 4/9/09 Posted by The National Security Network

See today's complete daily update here.

What We’re Reading

Richard Holbrooke went to India and met with leaders to discuss the “common threat” of extremism in Pakistan.

Britain’s top counter-terrorism official resigned after being photographed holding secret documents.

The U.S. will join talks with Iran and other nations on Tehran’s nuclear program.

Widespread corruption undercuts U.S. hopes for the Afghan National Police.

Commentary of the Day

The New York Times discusses the Red Cross report on U.S. treatment of detainees and calls for an investigation particularly of medical professionals involved.

Roger Cohen says that the U.S. should treat Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s comments on Iran with “appropriate skepticism” and focus on opening relations with Iran.

Lawrence Freedman examines the challenges of transitioning to a world without nuclear weapons.

The LA Times debates whether Bush administration torture memo-author John Yoo should be teaching at Chapman University Law School.  Chapman dean John C. Eastman says yes, Chapman professor Lawrence Rosenthal says no.

A New Approach For Democracy Promotion Posted by Michael Cohen

Regular readers of DA may have noticed that in recent weeks and months I've been spending a lot of time writing about democracy promotion - well it's not just because I love freedom! With my partner in crime at New America Foundation, Maria Figueroa Kupcu, I've been writing a report that we are unveiling today on revitalizing US democracy promotion and reforming the foreign assistance bureaucracy. After the past eight years, and the failures of the Freedom Agenda, I think we would all agree such a revitalization is much needed.

Of course, the inauguration of Barack Obama brought with it the hope that the image of the United States, particularly when it comes to democracy promotion issues, would immediately improve. But it is naive to think that such a transformation is simply a matter of changing national leaders. The challenges confronting America’s ability to seed democracy are numerous, and meeting them will require far-reaching institutional changes that go to the heart of this country’s approach to foreign assistance.

Beyond the pressing need for institutional reform, there is also the critical challenge of engaging with local non-state and civil society actors in fledgling democracies. These are the groups often best positioned to foster positive democratic outcomes, and many of the recommendations that we offer in this report are focused on both directly and indirectly bringing non-state actors to the forefront of U.S. democratization initiatives. 

It is these two points - how we engage more effectively with local civil society actors and how we strengthen the foreign assistance bureaucracy so that it operates more effectively and lends support to these local groups - that form the basis of this report.

You can read the full report here, but check out our key conclusions/recommendations after the jump.

GOP Finally Agrees With Obama on Ending the War in Iraq Posted by Adam Blickstein

Today, after years of political fighting, opportunism, maneuvering, obfuscation and obstruction, the GOP has finally agreed that it is time to begin drawing down American forces in Iraq. By standing beside Obama's timeline for ending America's combat mission in Iraq, and agreeing with a wide majority of the American people that the war there should start to wind down, Eric Cantor today clearly spelled out the Republican Party's position:

The GOP has the obligation to be the honest opposition. When we believe the president is correct - for example, in his handling of Iraq policy - we will stand with him. But when he and congressional Democrats put forward an agenda we fear will deal a blow to American prosperity, we will speak out and offer the country a better vision for the future.

Quite an incredible turnaround for a party that just months ago nominated someone who wanted troops to stay in Iraq 100 years.

Skilled Immigrants and Stimulus Posted by The Editors

From NSN intern Henry Burton:

The Washington Post reports that the stimulus bill restricts bailout recipients from hiring skilled immigrants:

As the U.S. economy slows, highly skilled foreign professionals seeking work under various visa programs are finding it harder to get jobs. President Obama's stimulus package stops U.S. companies, largely in banking and financial services, that take federal bailout money from hiring H-1B visa holders for two years if they have laid off American workers in the previous six months. The administration has vowed to tighten restrictions and step up oversight of all work visa applications.

The H-1B program brings in about 85,000 skilled foreign workers every year, ostensibly to fill jobs that U.S. workers cannot or will not do. But some companies in the science and technology fields, afraid of a backlash over hiring foreign professionals rather than American ones, are rescinding job offers. Analysts say it is part of a wave of mounting anger in the United States over work visas, especially at a time when more than half a million Americans are being laid off every month.

Obviously, there is some short-term logic in this.  By restricting work visas, we ensure that any jobs that are created in the US go to US citizens.  Since there are a lot of US citizens without jobs and the political system is struggling to put them to work, this helps achieve a (worthwhile) political goal.  Also, since citizens can vote and work-visa holders can't, it offers some opportunity for political grandstanding.

But the downside of this policy far outweighs the upside. 

Defense Budget Redux Posted by Michael Cohen

So a couple of days ago I had initial praise for Secretary Gates defense budget; but after some more review I'm less optimistic. I think Gates deserves praise for taking on some sacred cows but the NYT is right that "he did not go far enough."

Seeing some of the congressional backlash, it's hardly surprising that Gates wouldn't go whole hog or even cut defense spending, but at some point we're going to have to come grips with a dramatic re-examination of what our military is supposed to do - and as Winslow Wheeler points out at FP that simply hasn't happened:

From a budget perspective, it does not appear that the basic Department of Defense budget has changed; this set of decisions may be budget-neutral, or it may even hold in its future expanded net spending requirements.

Nor does Gates's announcement reorder defense spending away from occupations in foreign lands (the advocates call it "counterinsurgency") or change the fact that the United States will continue to spend most of its defense budget on forms of conventional warfare most reminiscent of the mid-20th century. To fight the indistinct, unspecified conflicts that the United States may face in the foreseeable future, neither the strategy nor the hardware has changed.

Again, I'm not as pessimistic as Wheeler because I think the kind of reforms that we need to see at the Pentagon are an incremental process that will take years if not decades to implement. And as Spencer Ackerman suggests at WINDY this may in fact be the first step in a larger reform process.

But before we start patting ourselves on the back let's remember that half of the budget is still dedicated to fighting enemies that have entered the proverbial "ashbin of history." We're still very far from having a defense budget that accurately reflects the security challenges the United States will be facing in the future.